阅读理解
Students of economics are in revolt again. This year, 65 groups of students from 30 countries established an International Student Initiative for Pluralism in Economics. In no other subject do students express such organised dissatisfaction with their teaching. It seems, however, to little lasting effect. Impermanence is inherent in student life: they don suits, collect their first salary and leave their complaints behind until the same gripes are rediscovered by a new group of 19-year-olds with similar naive hopes of changing the world. Still, recurrent dissatisfaction among both students and employers suggests they have a point.
One cause of the problem is not specific to economics. Modern universities prize research above teaching, to a degree that would astonish people outside the system, who imagine its primary purpose is to educate the young. In reality, teaching ability plays a negligible role in university hiring, tenure and promotion decisions. Many academic staff regard teaching as a nuisance that gets in the way of their "own" work. If most students were not having such a good time outside the classroom, they would be angrier than they are. They should be.
Students demand for more pluralism in the economics curriculum is well made. Yet much of the "heterodox economics" the Manchester students suggest including is flaky, the creation of people with their own political agenda, whether Marxist or neoliberal; or of those who cannot do the mathematics the dominant rational choice paradigm requires. Their professors reject the introduction of these alternative schemes for the same good reasons their science colleagues would reject phlogiston theory or creationism. Yet teachers are mistaken in their conformity, to a single methodological approach—encapsulated in the claim that has taken hold in the past four decades that approaches not based on rational choice foundations are unscientific or "not economics" . The need is not so much to teach alternative paradigms of economics as to teach that pragmatism, not paradigm, is the key to economic understanding.
This eclecticism is reflected in the curriculum proposals. The subject of economics is not a method of analysis but a set of problems—the problems that drew students to the subject in the first place. The proper scope of economics is any and all ideas that bear usefully on these topics: just as the proper scope of medicine is any and all therapies that help the patient.
One cause of the problem is not specific to economics. Modern universities prize research above teaching, to a degree that would astonish people outside the system, who imagine its primary purpose is to educate the young. In reality, teaching ability plays a negligible role in university hiring, tenure and promotion decisions. Many academic staff regard teaching as a nuisance that gets in the way of their "own" work. If most students were not having such a good time outside the classroom, they would be angrier than they are. They should be.
Students demand for more pluralism in the economics curriculum is well made. Yet much of the "heterodox economics" the Manchester students suggest including is flaky, the creation of people with their own political agenda, whether Marxist or neoliberal; or of those who cannot do the mathematics the dominant rational choice paradigm requires. Their professors reject the introduction of these alternative schemes for the same good reasons their science colleagues would reject phlogiston theory or creationism. Yet teachers are mistaken in their conformity, to a single methodological approach—encapsulated in the claim that has taken hold in the past four decades that approaches not based on rational choice foundations are unscientific or "not economics" . The need is not so much to teach alternative paradigms of economics as to teach that pragmatism, not paradigm, is the key to economic understanding.
This eclecticism is reflected in the curriculum proposals. The subject of economics is not a method of analysis but a set of problems—the problems that drew students to the subject in the first place. The proper scope of economics is any and all ideas that bear usefully on these topics: just as the proper scope of medicine is any and all therapies that help the patient.
单选题
16.Judging from the context, what does the word "don" (Para. 1) mean?
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】含义题。根据题干关键词定位到第一段倒数第二句，句意为“学生生活本质上就是暂时的：他们______西服，拿到自己的第一份薪水，就将过去的抱怨抛之脑后，直到新一批同样怀抱改变世界的天真愿望的19岁的年轻人，再次生出同样的牢骚为止”。可知don与collect、leave并列，并且具有逻辑关系，即学生先穿戴整齐，去工作，然后拿薪水。故正确答案为B项。
单选题
17.Which of the following is NOT true according to Paragraph 2?
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第二段。A项“教学能力是教师升职的最主要因素”与In reality，teaching ability plays a negligible role in university hiring，tenure and promotion decisions不符，故A项为正确答案。
单选题
18.The last sentence of the third paragraph most probably implies that______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】推断题。根据题干关键词定位到第三段最后一句：Their professors reject the introduction of these alternative schemes for the same good reasons their science colleagues would reject phlogiston theory or creationism。此句意为“他们的教授拒绝引入这些非传统课程，理由与理科教授会拒绝教授燃素论或神创论一样”。故D项“教授们反对这些备选方案”，符合题意，为正确答案。
单选题
19.According to the author, the key of understanding economics is______.
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】细节题。根据题干关键词定位到第四段最后一句：The need is not so much to teach alternative pamdigrns of economics as to teach that pragmatism，not paradigm，is the key to economic understanding。此句意为“与其说需要向学生们教授其他的经济学范式，还不如说需要教会他们，理解经济学的关键在于实用主义而非范式”。故D项“实用主义”正确。
单选题
20.What is the passage mainly about?
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】主旨题。此题是主旨题，要想做对此题，考生需要对全文有准确的把握和理解。全文主要围绕经济学专业的学生对目前的经济学教学不满展开论述，文章分析了造成学生不满的原因，并在最后一段提出解决办法。故B项“如何教授经济学”符合题意，为正确答案。